Bloomsbury Rule of Law vs Majoritarian Democracy

During the September 1996 elections in Bosnia, the late U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke pondered: Suppose the election was declared free and fair, and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to peace and reintegration. That is the dilemma. But, after all, what is more paradoxically democratic than a people exercising their vote against the harbingers of the rule of law and democracy? Some have commented that the presence of illiberal political movements in the public arena of many Western countries demonstrates that their democracy is so inclusive and alive that it comprehends and countenances even undemocratic forces and political agendas. But what if, on the contrary, these were the signs of the deconsolidation of democracy in those settings instead of its good health? What if democratically elected regimes were to ignore constitutional principles representing the rule of law and the limits of their power? In brief, what if the will of the people and the rule of law were at odds? The book explores the framework in which this tension takes place, combining scholars from different backgrounds and nationalities as well as academics and judges. The book presents a historical and theoretical reconstruction of the rule of laws evolution before looking at a set of problems around the notion of people and the forces claiming to represent their voice and tackling a variety of phenomena impacting on the traditional democratic balance of powers and institutional order; and focussing on the juxtaposition between judges (and, more generally, non representative bodies) and the peoples representation.